var bibbase_data = {"data":"\"Loading..\"\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n
\n generated by\n \n \"bibbase.org\"\n\n \n
\n \n\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n \n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page.\n
\n\n
\n \n\n This is just a preview! If you would like to use this list on your web page\n or create a new webpage based on this,\n create a free account and upload\n the file there. Then you will be able to modify it going forward.\n
\n\n
\n \n\n

To the site owner:

\n\n

Action required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n

    \n
  1. renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
  2. \n
  3. update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n
  4. \n
\n

\n\n

\n \n \n Fix it now\n

\n
\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n  \n 2022\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Compromising as an equal loss principle.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; Napolitano, B.; and Sanver, M. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Review of Economic Design. May 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Compromising article\n  \n \n \n \"Compromising hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{cailloux_compromising_2022,\n  title = {Compromising as an equal loss principle},\n  author = {Cailloux, Olivier and Napolitano, Beatrice and Sanver, M. Remzi},\n  journal = {Review of Economic Design},\n  month = May,\n  year = 2022,\n  doi = {10.1007/s10058-022-00302-w},\n  url_Article = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10058-022-00302-w},\n  url_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03665048/},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2021\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Simultaneous Elicitation of Scoring Rule and Agent Preferences for Robust Winner Determination.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Napolitano, B.; Cailloux, O.; and Viappiani, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2021), November 2021. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Simultaneous article\n  \n \n \n \"Simultaneous hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{napolitano:hal-03384433,\n\tTITLE = {{Simultaneous Elicitation of Scoring Rule and Agent Preferences for Robust Winner Determination}},\n\tAUTHOR = {Napolitano, Beatrice and Cailloux, Olivier and Viappiani, Paolo},\n\tBOOKTITLE = {{Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2021)}},\n\tYEAR = {2021},\n\tMONTH = Nov,\n  \tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-030-87756-9_4},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03384433/document},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03384433},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Deliberation in Valuation and Decision Making: A Conceptual Clarification.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Meinard, Y.; and Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Œconomia, 11(4). 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Deliberation article\n  \n \n \n \"Deliberation hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{meinard_deliberation_2021,\n\tauthor = {Meinard, Yves and Cailloux, Olivier},\n\ttitle = {Deliberation in Valuation and Decision Making: A Conceptual Clarification},\n\tjournal = {Œconomia},\n\tdoi = {10.4000/oeconomia.11669},\n\tvolume = 11,\n\tnumber = 4,\n\tyear = 2021,\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03487127/document},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03487127},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2020\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n A formal framework for deliberated judgment.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; and Meinard, Y.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Theory and Decision, 88(2): 269–295. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"A article\n  \n \n \n \"A github\n  \n \n \n \"A arxiv\n  \n \n \n \"A hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{cailloux_formal_2020,\n\ttitle = {A formal framework for deliberated judgment},\n\tkeywords = {Deliberated judgment},\n\turl_Article = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/formal-framework-dj/raw/master/deliber.pdf},\n\turl_GitHub = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/formal-framework-dj},\n\turl_arXiv = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05644},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02556933},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11238-019-09722-7},\n\tabstract = {While the philosophical literature has extensively studied how decisions relate to arguments, reasons and justifications, decision theory almost entirely ignores the latter notions.\nIn this article, we elaborate a formal framework in order to introduce in decision theory the stance that decision-makers take towards arguments and counter-arguments.We start from a decision situation, where an individual requests decision support. We formally define, as a commendable basis for decision-aid, this individual’s deliberated judgment, a notion inspired by Rawls' contributions to the philosophical literature, and embodying the requirement that the decision-maker should carefully examine arguments and counter-arguments. We explain how models of deliberated judgment can be validated empirically.\nWe then identify conditions upon which the existence of a valid model can be taken for granted, and analyze how these conditions can be relaxed. We then explore the significance of our framework for the practice of decision analysis. Our framework opens avenues for future research involving both philosophy and decision theory, as well as empirical implementations.},\n\tjournal = {Theory and Decision},\n\tvolume = 88,\n\tnumber = 2,\n\tpages="269--295",\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Meinard, Yves},\n\tyear = 2020,\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n While the philosophical literature has extensively studied how decisions relate to arguments, reasons and justifications, decision theory almost entirely ignores the latter notions. In this article, we elaborate a formal framework in order to introduce in decision theory the stance that decision-makers take towards arguments and counter-arguments.We start from a decision situation, where an individual requests decision support. We formally define, as a commendable basis for decision-aid, this individual’s deliberated judgment, a notion inspired by Rawls' contributions to the philosophical literature, and embodying the requirement that the decision-maker should carefully examine arguments and counter-arguments. We explain how models of deliberated judgment can be validated empirically. We then identify conditions upon which the existence of a valid model can be taken for granted, and analyze how these conditions can be relaxed. We then explore the significance of our framework for the practice of decision analysis. Our framework opens avenues for future research involving both philosophy and decision theory, as well as empirical implementations.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n On justifying the norms underlying decision support.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Meinard, Y.; and Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Journal of Operational Research, 285(3): 1002–1010. September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"On hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{meinard_justification_2020,\n\ttitle = {On justifying the norms underlying decision support},\n\tkeywords = {Deliberated judgment},\n\tabstract = {When decision sciences are applied to concrete problems, Decision Makers (DMs), concerned stakeholders, and the general public typically expect clear recommendations.\nAs emphasized in particular in the literature on ethical dimensions of Operational Research practice, such recommendations are unavoidably conditioned by norms or normative conceptions.\nAlthough an extensive literature is devoted to promoting certain norms designed to be largely accepted by decision analysts, studies specifically devoted to determine, at a general level, how decision analysts can decide which norms should underlie their work, are found lacking.\nTo make up for this lacuna, we flesh out the concept of justification. \nWe develop requirements that any justification should satisfy to qualify for being able to justify norms on which recommendations can rest.\nWe then introduce and recommend a series of practical rules that decision analysts should abide by, on the basis of which, in a given decision situation, a decision analyst can decide, together with the DM, whether a given norm underlying a given recommendation can be adopted.\n},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.ejor.2020.02.022},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03049579},\n\tauthor = {Meinard, Yves and Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tmonth = September,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tjournal = {European Journal of Operational Research},\n\tpages = "1002--1010",\n\tvolume = 285,\n\tnumber = 3,\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n When decision sciences are applied to concrete problems, Decision Makers (DMs), concerned stakeholders, and the general public typically expect clear recommendations. As emphasized in particular in the literature on ethical dimensions of Operational Research practice, such recommendations are unavoidably conditioned by norms or normative conceptions. Although an extensive literature is devoted to promoting certain norms designed to be largely accepted by decision analysts, studies specifically devoted to determine, at a general level, how decision analysts can decide which norms should underlie their work, are found lacking. To make up for this lacuna, we flesh out the concept of justification. We develop requirements that any justification should satisfy to qualify for being able to justify norms on which recommendations can rest. We then introduce and recommend a series of practical rules that decision analysts should abide by, on the basis of which, in a given decision situation, a decision analyst can decide, together with the DM, whether a given norm underlying a given recommendation can be adopted. \n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Consistency of tools that predict the impact of SNPs on gene functionality: the BRCA1 gene.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Murillo, J.; Spetale, F.; Guillaume, S.; Bulacio, P.; Labari, I. G.; Cailloux, O.; Destercke, S.; and Tapia, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Biomolecules, 10(3). 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Consistency hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{murillo_consistency_2020,\n\tauthor = {Murillo, Javier and Spetale, Flavio and Guillaume, Serge and Bulacio, Pilar and Labari, Ignacio Garcia and Cailloux, Olivier and Destercke, Sebastien and Tapia, Elizabeth},\n\ttitle = {Consistency of tools that predict the impact of SNPs on gene functionality: the BRCA1 gene},\n\tjournal = {Biomolecules},\n\tdoi = {10.3390/biom10030475},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02964085},\n\tvolume = 10,\n\tnumber = 3,\n\tyear = {2020},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n A Preliminary Comparison of P-Tool Consistency.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Murillo, J.; Spetale, F.; Tapia, E.; Krsticevic, F.; Cailloux, O.; Guillaume, S.; Vazquez, G.; Fernandez, T.; Destercke, S.; Ponce, S.; and Bulacio, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In González Díaz, C. A.; Chapa González, C.; Laciar Leber, E.; Vélez, H. A.; Puente, N. P.; Flores, D.; Andrade, A. O.; Galván, H. A.; Martínez, F.; García, R.; Trujillo, C. J.; and Mejía, A. R., editor(s), VIII Latin American Conference on Biomedical Engineering and XLII National Conference on Biomedical Engineering, of IFMBE Proceedings, pages 731–735, 2020. Springer International Publishing\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"A hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{murillo_preliminary_2020,\n\tseries = {{IFMBE} {Proceedings}},\n\ttitle = {A {Preliminary} {Comparison} of {P}-{Tool} {Consistency}},\n\tisbn = {978-3-030-30648-9},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-030-30648-9_97},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03082827},\n\tabstract = {Many Bioinformatics tools, known as p-tools, have been developed to predict the effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on gene functionality, in an effort to reduce the need for in-vivo assays. However, the large number of p-tools available and the heterogeneity of their output make their selection and comparison difficult. To study the consistency of predictions across p-tools, here we present two indices and test them on five p-tools whose predictions are based on different types of background information. For this test, SNPs from well-known organism Drosophila melanogaster are considered.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tbooktitle = {{VIII} {Latin} {American} {Conference} on {Biomedical} {Engineering} and {XLII} {National} {Conference} on {Biomedical} {Engineering}},\n\tpublisher = {Springer International Publishing},\n\tauthor = {Murillo, Javier and Spetale, Flavio and Tapia, Elizabeth and Krsticevic, Flavia and Cailloux, Olivier and Guillaume, Serge and Vazquez, Gustavo and Fernandez, Tamara and Destercke, Sebastien and Ponce, Sergio and Bulacio, Pilar},\n\teditor = {González Díaz, César A. and Chapa González, Christian and Laciar Leber, Eric and Vélez, Hugo A. and Puente, Norma P. and Flores, Dora-Luz and Andrade, Adriano O. and Galván, Héctor A. and Martínez, Fabiola and García, Renato and Trujillo, Citlalli J. and Mejía, Aldo R.},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {731--735}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Many Bioinformatics tools, known as p-tools, have been developed to predict the effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on gene functionality, in an effort to reduce the need for in-vivo assays. However, the large number of p-tools available and the heterogeneity of their output make their selection and comparison difficult. To study the consistency of predictions across p-tools, here we present two indices and test them on five p-tools whose predictions are based on different types of background information. For this test, SNPs from well-known organism Drosophila melanogaster are considered.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2018\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Towards automatic argumentation about voting rules.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kirsten, M.; and Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Bringay, S.; and Mattioli, J., editor(s), 4ème Conférence Nationale sur les Applications Pratiques de l'Intelligence Artificielle (APIA 2018), July 2018. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Towards article\n  \n \n \n \"Towards conference\n  \n \n \n \"Towards hal\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{kirsten_towards_2018,\n\ttitle = {Towards automatic argumentation about voting rules},\n\tkeywords = {Deliberated judgment},\n\tabstract = {Voting rules aggregate a group's preferences to make decisions. As multiple reasonable voting rules exist, the axiomatic approach has been proposed to exhibit both their merits and paradoxical behaviors. It is however a difficult task to characterize a voting rule by such axioms, and even when a proof exists, it may be difficult to understand why a specific rule fails to satisfy a given axiom.\n\tIn this article, we present an automatic method which determines whether a given rule satisfies a set of axioms. It produces evidence which can be used by non-expert users to comprehend why a rule violates some axiom and may serve to argue in favor of rules which satisfy it. Our method is based on the software analysis technique “bounded model checking”, which enables bounded verification of software programs. The method can be applied to arbitrary voting rules; we demonstrate it on the case of the Borda axiomatization and compare the Borda rule to both the Black and the Copeland voting rules.},\n\tbooktitle = {4ème {Conférence} {Nationale} sur les {Applications} {Pratiques} de l'{Intelligence} {Artificielle} ({APIA} 2018)},\n\tauthor = {Kirsten, Michael and Cailloux, Olivier},\n\teditor = {Bringay, Sandra and Mattioli, Juliette},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2018},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01830911/document},\n\turl_Conference = {https://pfia2018.loria.fr/apia/},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01830911v1},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Voting rules aggregate a group's preferences to make decisions. As multiple reasonable voting rules exist, the axiomatic approach has been proposed to exhibit both their merits and paradoxical behaviors. It is however a difficult task to characterize a voting rule by such axioms, and even when a proof exists, it may be difficult to understand why a specific rule fails to satisfy a given axiom. In this article, we present an automatic method which determines whether a given rule satisfies a set of axioms. It produces evidence which can be used by non-expert users to comprehend why a rule violates some axiom and may serve to argue in favor of rules which satisfy it. Our method is based on the software analysis technique “bounded model checking”, which enables bounded verification of software programs. The method can be applied to arbitrary voting rules; we demonstrate it on the case of the Borda axiomatization and compare the Borda rule to both the Black and the Copeland voting rules.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Learning argumentative recommenders.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n DA2PL'2018: From Multiple Criteria Decision Aid to Preference Learning\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Learning article\n  \n \n \n \"Learning conference\n  \n \n \n \"Learning slides\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@misc{cailloux_learning_2018,\n\ttitle = {Learning argumentative recommenders},\n\tkeywords = {Deliberated judgment, Preference modeling},\n\turl_Article = {https://da2pl.cs.put.poznan.pl/programme/detailed-programme/da2pl2018-abstract-09.pdf},\n\turl_Conference = {https://da2pl.cs.put.poznan.pl/programme/detailed-programme},\n\turl_Slides = {https://da2pl.cs.put.poznan.pl/programme/detailed-programme/da2pl2018-slides-15.pdf},\n\tabstract = {Recommender systems aim at recommending some item as most appropriate for the user. This article introduces a new way of measuring appropriateness for the user: an item is among the most appropriate ones if it is among the preferred items of the user when considering all arguments in favor or against all possible items. I describe precisely this goal and describe what a recommender system aiming for that goal could look like, called an Argumentative Recommender. I also provide a way of measuring whether a recommender system has achieved the goal, which can be used to compare such recommender systems, and briefly outline a way of building such a system.},\n\tnote = {DA2PL'2018: From Multiple Criteria Decision Aid to Preference Learning},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tyear = {2018}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Recommender systems aim at recommending some item as most appropriate for the user. This article introduces a new way of measuring appropriateness for the user: an item is among the most appropriate ones if it is among the preferred items of the user when considering all arguments in favor or against all possible items. I describe precisely this goal and describe what a recommender system aiming for that goal could look like, called an Argumentative Recommender. I also provide a way of measuring whether a recommender system has achieved the goal, which can be used to compare such recommender systems, and briefly outline a way of building such a system.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2017\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Reasons and Means to Model Preferences as Incomplete.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; and Destercke, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Scalable Uncertainty Management, of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17–30, October 2017. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Reasons article\n  \n \n \n \"Reasons arxiv\n  \n \n \n \"Reasons hal\n  \n \n \n \"Reasons github\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_reasons_2017,\n\tseries = {Lecture {Notes} in {Computer} {Science}},\n\ttitle = {Reasons and {Means} to {Model} {Preferences} as {Incomplete}},\n\tkeywords = {Preference modeling},\n\tisbn = {978-3-319-67581-7 978-3-319-67582-4},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_2},\n\tabstract = {Literature involving preferences of artificial agents or human beings often assume their preferences can be represented using a complete transitive binary relation. Much has been written however on different models of preferences. We review some of the reasons that have been put forward to justify more complex modeling, and review some of the techniques that have been proposed to obtain models of such preferences.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2018-01-11},\n\tbooktitle = {Scalable {Uncertainty} {Management}},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Destercke, Sébastien},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpages = {17--30},\n\turl_Article = {https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.01657},\n\turl_arXiv = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01657},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01658459},\n\turl_GitHub = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/pref-modeling-survey}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Literature involving preferences of artificial agents or human beings often assume their preferences can be represented using a complete transitive binary relation. Much has been written however on different models of preferences. We review some of the reasons that have been put forward to justify more complex modeling, and review some of the techniques that have been proposed to obtain models of such preferences.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2016\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Arguing about Voting Rules.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; and Endriss, U.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2016), Singapore, May 2016. IFAAMAS\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Arguing article\n  \n \n \n \"Arguing hal\n  \n \n \n \"Arguing comsoc 2016 version\n  \n \n \n \"Arguing presentations and more\n  \n \n \n \"Arguing proceedings\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_arguing_2016,\n\ttitle = {Arguing about {Voting} {Rules}},\n\tkeywords = {Deliberated judgment},\n\tisbn = {978-1-4503-4239-1},\n\tabstract = {When the members of a group have to make a decision, they can use a voting rule to aggregate their preferences. But which rule to use is a difficult question. Different rules have different properties, and social choice theorists have found arguments for and against most of them. These arguments are aimed at the expert reader, used to mathematical formalism. We propose a logic-based language to instantiate such arguments in concrete terms in order to help people understand the strengths and weaknesses of different voting rules. Our approach allows us to automatically derive a justification for a given election outcome or to support a group in arguing over which voting rule to use. We exemplify our approach with an in-depth study of the Borda rule.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 15th {International} {Conference} on {Autonomous} {Agents} and {Multiagent} {Systems} ({AAMAS}-2016)},\n\tpublisher = {IFAAMAS},\n\taddress = {Singapore},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Endriss, Ulle},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2016},\n\turl_Article = {http://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2016/pdfs/p287.pdf},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01388186},\n\turl_Comsoc_2016_version = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/Arguing-about-voting-rules/raw/comsoc-2016/arguing.pdf},\n\turl_Presentations_and_more = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/Arguing-about-voting-rules},\n\turl_Proceedings = {http://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2016/forms/authors.htm#C},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n When the members of a group have to make a decision, they can use a voting rule to aggregate their preferences. But which rule to use is a difficult question. Different rules have different properties, and social choice theorists have found arguments for and against most of them. These arguments are aimed at the expert reader, used to mathematical formalism. We propose a logic-based language to instantiate such arguments in concrete terms in order to help people understand the strengths and weaknesses of different voting rules. Our approach allows us to automatically derive a justification for a given election outcome or to support a group in arguing over which voting rule to use. We exemplify our approach with an in-depth study of the Borda rule.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2014\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n A Data Model for Algorithmic Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; Tervonen, T.; Verhaegen, B.; and Picalausa, F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Annals of Operations Research, 217(1): 77–94. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"A article\n  \n \n \n \"A hal\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{cailloux_data_2014,\n\ttitle = {A {Data} {Model} for {Algorithmic} {Multiple} {Criteria} {Decision} {Analysis}},\n\tvolume = {217},\n\tissn = {1572-9338},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10479-014-1562-1},\n\tabstract = {Various software tools implementing multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have appeared over the last decades. Although MCDA methods share common features, most of the implementing software have been developed independently from scratch. Majority of the tools have a proprietary storage format and exchanging data among software is cumbersome. Common data exchange standard would be useful for an analyst wanting to apply different methods on the same problem. The Decision Deck project has proposed to build components implementing MCDA methods in a reusable and interchangeable manner. A key element in this scheme is the XMCDA standard, a proposal that aims to standardize an XML encoding of common structures appearing in MCDA models, such as criteria and performance evaluations. Although XMCDA allows to present most data structures for MCDA models, it almost completely lacks data integrity checks. In this paper we present a new comprehensive data model for MCDA problems, implemented as an XML schema. The data model includes types that are sufficient to represent multi-attribute value/utility models, ELECTRE III/TRI models, and their stochastic extensions, and AHP. We also discuss use of the data model in algorithmic MCDA.},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {Annals of Operations Research},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Tervonen, Tommi and Verhaegen, Boris and Picalausa, François},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpages = {77--94},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00941128/document},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00941128},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Various software tools implementing multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have appeared over the last decades. Although MCDA methods share common features, most of the implementing software have been developed independently from scratch. Majority of the tools have a proprietary storage format and exchanging data among software is cumbersome. Common data exchange standard would be useful for an analyst wanting to apply different methods on the same problem. The Decision Deck project has proposed to build components implementing MCDA methods in a reusable and interchangeable manner. A key element in this scheme is the XMCDA standard, a proposal that aims to standardize an XML encoding of common structures appearing in MCDA models, such as criteria and performance evaluations. Although XMCDA allows to present most data structures for MCDA models, it almost completely lacks data integrity checks. In this paper we present a new comprehensive data model for MCDA problems, implemented as an XML schema. The data model includes types that are sufficient to represent multi-attribute value/utility models, ELECTRE III/TRI models, and their stochastic extensions, and AHP. We also discuss use of the data model in algorithmic MCDA.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Eliciting a Suitable Voting Rule via Examples.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; and Endriss, U.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Schaub, T.; Friedrich, G.; and O'Sullivan, B., editor(s), Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2014), volume 263, pages 183–188, 2014. IOS Press\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Eliciting article\n  \n \n \n \"Eliciting hal\n  \n \n \n \"Eliciting presentation\n  \n \n \n \"Eliciting short presentation\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_eliciting_2014,\n\tIGNORED_COMMENT_series = {Frontiers in {Artificial} {Intelligence} and {Applications}},\n\ttitle = {Eliciting a {Suitable} {Voting} {Rule} via {Examples}},\n\tvolume = {263},\n\tisbn = {978-1-61499-419-0},\n\tdoi = {10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-183},\n\tabstract = {We address the problem of specifying a voting rule by means of a series of examples. Each example consists of the answer to a simple question: how should the rule rank two alternatives, given the positions at which each voter ranks the two alternatives? To be able to formalise this elicitation problem, we develop a novel variant of classical social choice theory in terms of associations of alternatives with vectors of ranks rather than the common associations of voters with preference orders. We then define and study a class of voting rules suited for elicitation using such answers. Finally, we propose and experimentally evaluate several elicitation strategies for arriving at a good approximation of the target rule with a reasonable number of queries.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st {European} {Conference} on {Artificial} {Intelligence} ({ECAI} 2014)},\n\tpublisher = {IOS Press},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Endriss, Ulle},\n\teditor = {Schaub, Torsten and Friedrich, Gerhard and O'Sullivan, Barry},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpages = {183--188},\n\turl_Article = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/~ulle/pubs/files/CaillouxEndrissECAI2014.pdf},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00998287},\n\turl_Presentation = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/eliciting-voting-rules-pres-long},\n\turl_Short_presentation = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/eliciting-voting-rules-pres-short}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n We address the problem of specifying a voting rule by means of a series of examples. Each example consists of the answer to a simple question: how should the rule rank two alternatives, given the positions at which each voter ranks the two alternatives? To be able to formalise this elicitation problem, we develop a novel variant of classical social choice theory in terms of associations of alternatives with vectors of ranks rather than the common associations of voters with preference orders. We then define and study a class of voting rules suited for elicitation using such answers. Finally, we propose and experimentally evaluate several elicitation strategies for arriving at a good approximation of the target rule with a reasonable number of queries.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2013\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Operational tools to build a multicriteria territorial risk scale with multiple stakeholders.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; Mayag, B.; Meyer, P.; and Mousseau, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 120: 88–97. December 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Operational hal\n  \n \n \n \"Operational article\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{cailloux_operational_2013,\n\ttitle = {Operational tools to build a multicriteria territorial risk scale with multiple stakeholders},\n\tkeywords = {Preference modeling},\n\tvolume = {120},\n\tissn = {0951-8320},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.004},\n\tabstract = {Evaluating and comparing the threats and vulnerabilities associated with territorial zones according to multiple criteria (industrial activity, population, etc.) can be a time-consuming task and often requires the participation of several stakeholders. Rather than a direct evaluation of these zones, building a risk assessment scale and using it in a formal procedure permits to automate the assessment and therefore to apply it in a repeated way and in large-scale contexts and, provided the chosen procedure and scale are accepted, to make it objective. One of the main difficulties of building such a formal evaluation procedure is to account for the multiple decision makers' preferences. The procedure used in this article, Electre Tri, uses the performances of each territorial zone on multiple criteria, together with preferential parameters from multiple decision makers, to qualitatively assess their associated risk level. We also present operational tools in order to implement such a procedure in practice, and show their use on a detailed example.},\n\turldate = {2013-09-07},\n\tjournal = {Reliability Engineering \\& System Safety},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Mayag, Brice and Meyer, Patrick and Mousseau, Vincent},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2013},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00857929/},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00857929/document},\n\tpages = {88--97}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Evaluating and comparing the threats and vulnerabilities associated with territorial zones according to multiple criteria (industrial activity, population, etc.) can be a time-consuming task and often requires the participation of several stakeholders. Rather than a direct evaluation of these zones, building a risk assessment scale and using it in a formal procedure permits to automate the assessment and therefore to apply it in a repeated way and in large-scale contexts and, provided the chosen procedure and scale are accepted, to make it objective. One of the main difficulties of building such a formal evaluation procedure is to account for the multiple decision makers' preferences. The procedure used in this article, Electre Tri, uses the performances of each territorial zone on multiple criteria, together with preferential parameters from multiple decision makers, to qualitatively assess their associated risk level. We also present operational tools in order to implement such a procedure in practice, and show their use on a detailed example.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2012\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Dealing with numerical imprecision in mathematical programs for Electre Tri models disaggregation.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2012-02, Laboratoire Génie Industriel, École Centrale Paris, March 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Dealing hal\n  \n \n \n \"Dealing article\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@techreport{cailloux_dealing_2012,\n\ttype = {Cahier d’Études et de {Recherche}},\n\ttitle = {Dealing with numerical imprecision in mathematical programs for {Electre} {Tri} models disaggregation},\n\tnumber = {2012-02},\n\tinstitution = {Laboratoire Génie Industriel, École Centrale Paris},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00985881},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00985881/document}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Élicitation indirecte de modèles de tri multicritère.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, École Centrale Paris, Paris, November 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Élicitation theses.fr\n  \n \n \n \"Élicitation manuscript\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@phdthesis{cailloux_elicitation_2012,\n\taddress = {Paris},\n\ttype = {{PhD} {Thesis}},\n\ttitle = {Élicitation indirecte de modèles de tri multicritère},\n\tabstract = {The field of MCDA aims to model in a formal way the preferences of a DM in order to bring informations that can help her in a decision problem. MCDA is interested in situations where the available options (called alternatives) are evaluated on multiple points of view.\n\nThis work suggests elicitation methods: ways of questioning a DM or a group of DMs in order to obtain one or several preference models. These methods rely on so-called disaggregation techniques, which use exemplary decisions as a basis for building the preference model. In our context, the preference models are sorting models: they determine a way of assigning alternatives to preference-ordered categories. We are interested in a class of sorting models called MR Sort.\n\nWe present a method that helps a group of DMs converge to a unique sorting model.  It uses mathematical programs. We also analyze in detail the difficulties due to numerical imprecision when implementing these programs, and we propose an algorithm allowing to compare two MR Sort models.\n\nWe introduce a novel way of interrogating the DM in order to take her hesitations into account, through the expression of degrees of credibility, when she gives assignment examples. Results of the method let the DM examine possible compromises between credibility and precision of the conclusions.\n\nWe propose a method to choose portfolios. It encompasses two dimensions: absolute evaluation, in order to ensure that the selected alternatives are sufficiently good, and balance of the resulting portfolio. We also explain how this method compares to affirmative action.\n\nWe describe the reusable software components that we have submitted to a web services platform, as well as functionalities developed in a library that implements the methods this work proposes.\n\nA data scheme exists that aims to standardize encoding of data related to MCDA methods, in order to ease communication between software components. We propose a new approach aiming to solve some drawbacks of the current approach.\n\nWe develop as a perspective a proposal that aims to integrate preference modeling into the framework of realistic epistemology.},\n\tlanguage = {French},\n\tschool = {École Centrale Paris},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\turl_Theses.fr = {http://www.theses.fr/en/2012ECAP0043},\n\tIGNORED_COMMENT = {PDF on theses.fr - archives-ouvertes.fr incorrectly paginated},\n\turl_Manuscript = {https://github.com/oliviercailloux/doctorat/raw/master/phd.pdf}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The field of MCDA aims to model in a formal way the preferences of a DM in order to bring informations that can help her in a decision problem. MCDA is interested in situations where the available options (called alternatives) are evaluated on multiple points of view. This work suggests elicitation methods: ways of questioning a DM or a group of DMs in order to obtain one or several preference models. These methods rely on so-called disaggregation techniques, which use exemplary decisions as a basis for building the preference model. In our context, the preference models are sorting models: they determine a way of assigning alternatives to preference-ordered categories. We are interested in a class of sorting models called MR Sort. We present a method that helps a group of DMs converge to a unique sorting model. It uses mathematical programs. We also analyze in detail the difficulties due to numerical imprecision when implementing these programs, and we propose an algorithm allowing to compare two MR Sort models. We introduce a novel way of interrogating the DM in order to take her hesitations into account, through the expression of degrees of credibility, when she gives assignment examples. Results of the method let the DM examine possible compromises between credibility and precision of the conclusions. We propose a method to choose portfolios. It encompasses two dimensions: absolute evaluation, in order to ensure that the selected alternatives are sufficiently good, and balance of the resulting portfolio. We also explain how this method compares to affirmative action. We describe the reusable software components that we have submitted to a web services platform, as well as functionalities developed in a library that implements the methods this work proposes. A data scheme exists that aims to standardize encoding of data related to MCDA methods, in order to ease communication between software components. We propose a new approach aiming to solve some drawbacks of the current approach. We develop as a perspective a proposal that aims to integrate preference modeling into the framework of realistic epistemology.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Indirect elicitation of MCDA sorting models using valued assignment examples.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; Dias, L.; Mayag, B.; and Mousseau, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report 2012-04, Laboratoire Génie Industriel, École Centrale Paris, July 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@techreport{cailloux_indirect_2012,\n\ttype = {Cahier d’Études et de {Recherche}},\n\ttitle = {Indirect elicitation of {MCDA} sorting models using valued assignment examples},\n\tnumber = {2012-04},\n\tinstitution = {Laboratoire Génie Industriel, École Centrale Paris},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Dias, Luis and Mayag, Brice and Mousseau, Vincent},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2012}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Eliciting ELECTRE TRI category limits for a group of decision makers.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; Meyer, P.; and Mousseau, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Journal of Operational Research, 223(1): 133–140. November 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Eliciting hal\n  \n \n \n \"Eliciting article\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{cailloux_eliciting_2012,\n\ttitle = {Eliciting {ELECTRE} {TRI} category limits for a group of decision makers},\n\tkeywords = {Preference modeling},\n\tvolume = {223},\n\tissn = {0377-2217},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.032},\n\tabstract = {Multiple criteria sorting aims at assigning alternatives evaluated on several criteria to predefined ordered categories. In this paper, we consider a well known multiple criteria sorting method, ELECTRE TRI, which involves three types of preference parameters: (1) category limits defining the frontiers between consecutive categories, (2) weights and majority level specifying which coalitions form a majority, and (3) veto thresholds characterizing discordance effects. We propose an elicitation procedure to infer category limits from assignment example provided by multiple decision makers. The procedure computes a set of category limits common to all decision makers, with variable weights and vetoes for each decision maker. Hence, the method helps reaching a consensus among decision makers on the category limits, whereas finding a consensus on  weights and vetoes is left aside.\nThe inference procedure is based on mixed integer linear programming and performs well even for datasets corresponding to real-world decision problems. We provide an illustrative example of the method and analyze the performance of the proposed algorithms.},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {European Journal of Operational Research},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Meyer, Patrick and Mousseau, Vincent},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tpages = {133--140},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00739582},\n\tIGNORED_COMMENT = {also presented at The 21st International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Jyväskylä, Finlande, June 2011: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00609521},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00739582/document}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Multiple criteria sorting aims at assigning alternatives evaluated on several criteria to predefined ordered categories. In this paper, we consider a well known multiple criteria sorting method, ELECTRE TRI, which involves three types of preference parameters: (1) category limits defining the frontiers between consecutive categories, (2) weights and majority level specifying which coalitions form a majority, and (3) veto thresholds characterizing discordance effects. We propose an elicitation procedure to infer category limits from assignment example provided by multiple decision makers. The procedure computes a set of category limits common to all decision makers, with variable weights and vetoes for each decision maker. Hence, the method helps reaching a consensus among decision makers on the category limits, whereas finding a consensus on weights and vetoes is left aside. The inference procedure is based on mixed integer linear programming and performs well even for datasets corresponding to real-world decision problems. We provide an illustrative example of the method and analyze the performance of the proposed algorithms.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2011\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Real-time prediction of an anesthetic monitor index using machine learning.\n \n \n\n\n \n Caelen, O.; Cailloux, O.; Ghoundiwal, D.; Miranda, A. A.; Barvais, L.; and Bontempi, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of The First International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Health Care and Medicine, pages 78 – 89, Athens, Greece, September 2011. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{caelen_real-time_2011,\n\taddress = {Athens, Greece},\n\ttitle = {Real-time prediction of an anesthetic monitor index using machine learning},\n\tabstract = {An anesthesiologist controls the level of consciousness of a patient undergoing surgery by appropriately dosing hypnotic drugs. The information provided by the monitoring devices may be utilized in order to accomplish this task. One such monitor provides a dimensionless quantity derived from the electroencephalogram called bispectral index (BIS), which could quantify the level of awareness of the patient. This article discusses the use of machine learning techniques to implement a predictive model of the BIS based on the variation of the hypnotic drugs. Such a model learned from a database of recorded operations can aid realtime decision making during the course of an operation.\nIn order to deal with inter-individual variability, the proposed model takes into account patient physiology as well as the reactions of the patient during the early phases of the operation. Two models of the bispectral index behavior are assessed and compared in this work: a linear predictor and a local learning predictor. These prediction models were software implemented and their accuracies were assessed by a computerized cross-validation study and were tested in real situations.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of {The} {First} {International} {Workshop} on {Knowledge} {Discovery} in {Health} {Care} and {Medicine}},\n\tauthor = {Caelen, Olivier and Cailloux, Olivier and Ghoundiwal, Djamal and Miranda, Abhilash Alexander and Barvais, Luc and Bontempi, Gianluca},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tpages = {78 -- 89}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n An anesthesiologist controls the level of consciousness of a patient undergoing surgery by appropriately dosing hypnotic drugs. The information provided by the monitoring devices may be utilized in order to accomplish this task. One such monitor provides a dimensionless quantity derived from the electroencephalogram called bispectral index (BIS), which could quantify the level of awareness of the patient. This article discusses the use of machine learning techniques to implement a predictive model of the BIS based on the variation of the hypnotic drugs. Such a model learned from a database of recorded operations can aid realtime decision making during the course of an operation. In order to deal with inter-individual variability, the proposed model takes into account patient physiology as well as the reactions of the patient during the early phases of the operation. Two models of the bispectral index behavior are assessed and compared in this work: a linear predictor and a local learning predictor. These prediction models were software implemented and their accuracies were assessed by a computerized cross-validation study and were tested in real situations.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Parameterize a territorial risk evaluation scale using multiple experts knowledge through risk assessment examples.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; and Mousseau, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Bérenguer, C.; Grall, A.; and Guedes Soares, C., editor(s), Advances in Safety, Reliability and Risk Management, pages 2331–2339, Troyes, France, September 2011. Taylor and Francis Group, London\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Parameterize hal\n  \n \n \n \"Parameterize article\n  \n \n \n \"Parameterize proceedings\n  \n \n \n \"Parameterize conference\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_parameterize_2011,\n\taddress = {Troyes, France},\n\ttitle = {Parameterize a territorial risk evaluation scale using multiple experts knowledge through risk assessment examples},\n\tisbn = {978-0-415-68379-1},\n\tabstract = {Evaluating and comparing the threats and vulnerabilities associated with territorial zones according to multiple criteria (industrial activity, population, etc.) can be a time-consuming task and often requires the participation of several experts and decision makers. Rather than a direct evaluation of these zones, building a risk evaluation scale and using it in a formal procedure permits to automate the assessment and therefore to apply it in a repeated way and in large-scale contexts and, provided the chosen procedure and scale are accepted, to make it objective. One of the main difficulty of building such a formal evaluation procedure is to account for the multiple experts knowledge and decision makers preferences. The procedure used in this article, ELECTRE TRI, uses the performances of each territorial zone on multiple criteria, together with preferential parameters, to qualitatively assess their associated risk level. The preferential parameters to be determined are the category limits, i.e. the limits on each criterion of the performance range associated with a given risk level, and the weights associated with the different criteria. To obtain these parameters with no direct questioning of the stakeholders, tools based on mathematical programming have been developed to deduce these preferential parameters from assessment examples. In this article, several such tools are applied together in order to build a complete example leading to the definition of a territorial risk evaluation scale taking into account the preferences of multiple stakeholders.},\n\tbooktitle = {Advances in {Safety}, {Reliability} and {Risk} {Management}},\n\tpublisher = {Taylor and Francis Group, London},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Mousseau, Vincent},\n\teditor = {Bérenguer, Christophe and Grall, Antoine and Guedes Soares, Carlos},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tpages = {2331--2339},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00614714/},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00614714/document},\n\turl_Proceedings = {https://www.crcpress.com/Advances-in-Safety-Reliability-and-Risk-Management-ESREL-2011/Berenguer-Grall-Guedes-Soares/p/book/9780415683791},\n\turl_Conference = {http://www1.utt.fr/esrel2011/}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Evaluating and comparing the threats and vulnerabilities associated with territorial zones according to multiple criteria (industrial activity, population, etc.) can be a time-consuming task and often requires the participation of several experts and decision makers. Rather than a direct evaluation of these zones, building a risk evaluation scale and using it in a formal procedure permits to automate the assessment and therefore to apply it in a repeated way and in large-scale contexts and, provided the chosen procedure and scale are accepted, to make it objective. One of the main difficulty of building such a formal evaluation procedure is to account for the multiple experts knowledge and decision makers preferences. The procedure used in this article, ELECTRE TRI, uses the performances of each territorial zone on multiple criteria, together with preferential parameters, to qualitatively assess their associated risk level. The preferential parameters to be determined are the category limits, i.e. the limits on each criterion of the performance range associated with a given risk level, and the weights associated with the different criteria. To obtain these parameters with no direct questioning of the stakeholders, tools based on mathematical programming have been developed to deduce these preferential parameters from assessment examples. In this article, several such tools are applied together in order to build a complete example leading to the definition of a territorial risk evaluation scale taking into account the preferences of multiple stakeholders.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n MCDA tools and Risk Analysis: the Decision Deck Project.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Mayag, B.; Cailloux, O.; and Mousseau, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Bérenguer, C.; Grall, A.; and Guedes Soares, C., editor(s), Advances in Safety, Reliability and Risk Management, pages 2324–2330, September 2011. Taylor and Francis Group, London\n Sept. 18-22, 2011, Troyes, France\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"MCDA hal\n  \n \n \n \"MCDA article\n  \n \n \n \"MCDA proceedings\n  \n \n \n \"MCDA conference\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{mayag_mcda_2011,\n\ttitle = {{MCDA} tools and {Risk} {Analysis}: the {Decision} {Deck} {Project}},\n\tisbn = {978-0-415-68379-1},\n\tabstract = {Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) aims at helping a decision maker (DM) in the representation of his preferences over a set of alternatives, on the basis of several criteria which are often contradictory. In addition to the presence of a DM, MCDA process requires a specification of criteria, alternatives and preferential information given by the DM. Hence many methods have been developed in order to solve MCDA problems (ELECTRE methods, AHP, etc.). The interconnexion between MCDA and risk analysis has been proved. MCDA methods can be used to solve risk analysis problems such as: * Computation of a risk scale: it can be done by using MCDA methods as ELECTRE TRI or by MACBETH methodology when the scale is quantitative; * The evaluation of remediation solutions after an accident. We present in this paper the Decision Deck (DD) project (http://www.decision-deck.org/) which aims at collaboratively developing Open Source software tools implementing MCDA. These tools constitute an open source platform available for all communities, not only for MCDA community. We show how MCDA methods implemented in Decision Deck can be useful for risk analysis, especially in risk assessment and remediation risk management. Thus, Decision Deck can be interpreted as a bridge between MCDA and risk analysis.},\n\tbooktitle = {Advances in {Safety}, {Reliability} and {Risk} {Management}},\n\tpublisher = {Taylor and Francis Group, London},\n\tauthor = {Mayag, Brice and Cailloux, Olivier and Mousseau, Vincent},\n\teditor = {Bérenguer, Christophe and Grall, Antoine and Guedes Soares, Carlos},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tnote = {Sept. 18-22, 2011, Troyes, France},\n\tpages = {2324--2330},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00614733/},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00614733/document},\n\turl_Proceedings = {https://www.crcpress.com/Advances-in-Safety-Reliability-and-Risk-Management-ESREL-2011/Berenguer-Grall-Guedes-Soares/p/book/9780415683791},\n\turl_Conference = {http://www1.utt.fr/esrel2011/}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) aims at helping a decision maker (DM) in the representation of his preferences over a set of alternatives, on the basis of several criteria which are often contradictory. In addition to the presence of a DM, MCDA process requires a specification of criteria, alternatives and preferential information given by the DM. Hence many methods have been developed in order to solve MCDA problems (ELECTRE methods, AHP, etc.). The interconnexion between MCDA and risk analysis has been proved. MCDA methods can be used to solve risk analysis problems such as: * Computation of a risk scale: it can be done by using MCDA methods as ELECTRE TRI or by MACBETH methodology when the scale is quantitative; * The evaluation of remediation solutions after an accident. We present in this paper the Decision Deck (DD) project (http://www.decision-deck.org/) which aims at collaboratively developing Open Source software tools implementing MCDA. These tools constitute an open source platform available for all communities, not only for MCDA community. We show how MCDA methods implemented in Decision Deck can be useful for risk analysis, especially in risk assessment and remediation risk management. Thus, Decision Deck can be interpreted as a bridge between MCDA and risk analysis.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Constrained Multicriteria Sorting Method Applied to Portfolio Selection.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Zheng, J.; Cailloux, O.; and Mousseau, V.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Brafman, R. I.; Roberts, F. S.; and Tsoukiàs, A., editor(s), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory, volume 6992, of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 331–343, Rutgers, United States, October 2011. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Constrained hal\n  \n \n \n \"Constrained article\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{zheng_constrained_2011,\n\taddress = {Rutgers, United States},\n\tseries = {Lecture {Notes} in {Computer} {Science}},\n\ttitle = {Constrained {Multicriteria} {Sorting} {Method} {Applied} to {Portfolio} {Selection}},\n\tvolume = {6992},\n\tisbn = {978-3-642-24872-6},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-24873-3_25},\n\tabstract = {The paper focuses on portfolio selection problems which aim at selecting a subset of alternatives considering not only the performance of the alternatives evaluated on multiple criteria, but also the performance of portfolio as a whole, on which balance over alternatives on specific attributes is required by the Decision Makers (DMs). We propose a two-level method to handle such decision situation. First, at the individual level, the alternatives are evaluated by the sorting model Electre Tri which assigns alternatives to predefined ordered categories by comparing alternatives to profiles separating the categories. The DMs’ preferences on alternatives are expressed by some assignment examples they can provide, which reduces the DMs’ cognitive efforts. Second, at the portfolio level, the DMs’ preferences express requirements on the composition of portfolio and are modeled as constraints on category size.\nThe method proceeds through the resolution of a Mixed Integer Program (MIP) and selects a satisfactory portfolio as close as possible to the DMs’ preference.\nThe usefulness of the proposed method is illustrated by an example which integrates a sorting model with assignment examples and constraints on the portfolio definition. The method can be used widely in portfolio selection situation where the decision should be made taking into account the individual alternative and portfolio performance simultaneously.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd {International} {Conference} on {Algorithmic} {Decision} {Theory}},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\tauthor = {Zheng, Jun and Cailloux, Olivier and Mousseau, Vincent},\n\teditor = {Brafman, Ronen I. and Roberts, Fred S. and Tsoukiàs, Alexis},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tpages = {331--343},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00951743},\n\tIGNORED_COMMENT = {also: https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00614734/, but the PDF is ugly},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00951743/document}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The paper focuses on portfolio selection problems which aim at selecting a subset of alternatives considering not only the performance of the alternatives evaluated on multiple criteria, but also the performance of portfolio as a whole, on which balance over alternatives on specific attributes is required by the Decision Makers (DMs). We propose a two-level method to handle such decision situation. First, at the individual level, the alternatives are evaluated by the sorting model Electre Tri which assigns alternatives to predefined ordered categories by comparing alternatives to profiles separating the categories. The DMs’ preferences on alternatives are expressed by some assignment examples they can provide, which reduces the DMs’ cognitive efforts. Second, at the portfolio level, the DMs’ preferences express requirements on the composition of portfolio and are modeled as constraints on category size. The method proceeds through the resolution of a Mixed Integer Program (MIP) and selects a satisfactory portfolio as close as possible to the DMs’ preference. The usefulness of the proposed method is illustrated by an example which integrates a sorting model with assignment examples and constraints on the portfolio definition. The method can be used widely in portfolio selection situation where the decision should be made taking into account the individual alternative and portfolio performance simultaneously.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2010\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n ELECTRE and PROMETHEE MCDA methods as reusable software components.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the 25th Mini-EURO Conference on Uncertainty and Robustness in Planning and Decision Making (URPDM 2010), Coimbra, Portugal, April 2010. University of Coimbra, Portugal\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ELECTRE hal\n  \n \n \n \"ELECTRE article\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_electre_2010,\n\taddress = {Coimbra, Portugal},\n\ttitle = {{ELECTRE} and {PROMETHEE} {MCDA} methods as reusable software components},\n\tisbn = {978-989-95055-3-7},\n\tabstract = {Open source software components implementing features of the ELECTRE and PROMETHEE family of MCDA procedures have been developed at Université Libre de Bruxelles and École Centrale Paris, as part of the Decision Deck project. As these procedures share several computation routines, they have been implemented as a set of independent components which can then be assembled in various ways. Care has been taken to develop complete structures representing the underlying MCDA concepts, thereby providing easy to reuse artifacts. The goal was to make them easy to use for the end-user as well as for a developer usage, i.e. to allow building of more complex functionalities on top of these objects. The components deal with XMCDA conforming files (i.e., files conforming to the XMCDA grammar, a standard published by the Decision Deck consortium) in input and output and can also be helpful for a developer wanting to provide his own software with the ability to read or write such files. This article describes the architecture of the components and details some of their usage possibilities.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th {Mini}-{EURO} {Conference} on {Uncertainty} and {Robustness} in {Planning} and {Decision} {Making} ({URPDM} 2010)},\n\tpublisher = {University of Coimbra, Portugal},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01079218},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal-ecp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01079218/document}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Open source software components implementing features of the ELECTRE and PROMETHEE family of MCDA procedures have been developed at Université Libre de Bruxelles and École Centrale Paris, as part of the Decision Deck project. As these procedures share several computation routines, they have been implemented as a set of independent components which can then be assembled in various ways. Care has been taken to develop complete structures representing the underlying MCDA concepts, thereby providing easy to reuse artifacts. The goal was to make them easy to use for the end-user as well as for a developer usage, i.e. to allow building of more complex functionalities on top of these objects. The components deal with XMCDA conforming files (i.e., files conforming to the XMCDA grammar, a standard published by the Decision Deck consortium) in input and output and can also be helpful for a developer wanting to provide his own software with the ability to read or write such files. This article describes the architecture of the components and details some of their usage possibilities.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2007\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n A taxonomy of clustering procedures.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; Lamboray, C.; and Nemery, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the 66th Meeting of the European Working Group on MCDA, Marrakech, Morocco, 2007. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"A hal\n  \n \n \n \"A article\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_taxonomy_2007,\n\taddress = {Marrakech, Morocco},\n\ttitle = {A taxonomy of clustering procedures},\n\tabstract = {In the field of multicriteria decision aid, considerable attention has been paid to supervised classification problems, especially to so-called sorting problems, where an order is assumed on the predefined classes. Recently, some non-supervised multicriteria classification procedures, also known as multicriteria clustering procedures, have been proposed aiming to discover data structures from a multicriteria perspective. We enlighten some properties of such approaches and their differences with regards to classical procedures, and we propose a taxonomy of this family of procedures. Moreover, we analyze extend to which these procedures differ from the multicriteria ranking problematic.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 66th {Meeting} of the {European} {Working} {Group} on {MCDA}},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and Lamboray, Claude and Nemery, Philippe},\n\tyear = {2007},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00985860},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00985860/document}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n In the field of multicriteria decision aid, considerable attention has been paid to supervised classification problems, especially to so-called sorting problems, where an order is assumed on the predefined classes. Recently, some non-supervised multicriteria classification procedures, also known as multicriteria clustering procedures, have been proposed aiming to discover data structures from a multicriteria perspective. We enlighten some properties of such approaches and their differences with regards to classical procedures, and we propose a taxonomy of this family of procedures. Moreover, we analyze extend to which these procedures differ from the multicriteria ranking problematic.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2006\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n Fairness in Certified Electronic Mail.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.; González-Deleito, N.; and Markowitch, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Prapinmonkolkarn, P.; and Angkaew, T., editor(s), Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Networks and Communication Systems, pages 298 – 303, March 2006. ACTA Press\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Fairness hal\n  \n \n \n \"Fairness article\n  \n \n \n \"Fairness editor\n  \n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{cailloux_fairness_2006,\n\ttitle = {Fairness in {Certified} {Electronic} {Mail}},\n\tisbn = {0-88986-590-6},\n\tabstract = {The growing use of the Internet promotes the replacement of traditional manual transactions by equivalent electronic services. Research was carried out to investigate enhanced services related to electronic mail. This paper points out that a certified email protocol has to provide the sender of a certified email with an evidence that this email has been either received or refused by its recipient, and proposes a new definition of the fairness property, specific to the certified email field. Finally, a new efficient certified email protocol respecting this property is presented.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 2006 {International} {Conference} on {Networks} and {Communication} {Systems}},\n\tpublisher = {ACTA Press},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier and González-Deleito, Nicolás and Markowitch, Olivier},\n\teditor = {Prapinmonkolkarn, P. and Angkaew, T.},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2006},\n\tpages = {298 -- 303},\n\turl_HAL = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00985829},\n\turl_Article = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00985829/document},\n\turl_Editor = {http://www.actapress.com/Abstract.aspx?paperId=23657},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The growing use of the Internet promotes the replacement of traditional manual transactions by equivalent electronic services. Research was carried out to investigate enhanced services related to electronic mail. This paper points out that a certified email protocol has to provide the sender of a certified email with an evidence that this email has been either received or refused by its recipient, and proposes a new definition of the fairness property, specific to the certified email field. Finally, a new efficient certified email protocol respecting this property is presented.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Analyse de données et aide multicritère à la décision : synergies.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n June 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@misc{cailloux_analyse_2006,\n\taddress = {Brussels, Belgium},\n\ttype = {Master's {Thesis} ({Mémoire} de {Diplôme} d'Études {Approfondies} en {Sciences} {Appliquées})},\n\ttitle = {Analyse de données et aide multicritère à la décision : synergies},\n\tabstract = {Ce travail présente, de façon intégrée, les domaines du clustering, de la classification supervisée, et de l’aide multicritère à la décision, et plus particulièrement les procédures de tri. Il présente une critique d’un modèle de présentation bien établi, et nous proposons une définition de l’aide multicritère à la décision, ainsi que de la notion centrale de critère, originale. Nous présentons également une argumentation critique justifiant l’intransitivité des préférences, un sujet souvent très polémique. Nous analysons et critiquons Promethee TRI, une procédure de tri intégrant des idées du domaine de la classification supervisée.\nLa partie III présente une réflexion qui n’a pas été faite à notre connaissance, concernant la difficulté, plus grande que prévue, d’intégration de l’aide multicritère à la décision et des domaines plus classiques. Outre une vision nouvelle permettant d’intégrer le clustering et la classification supervisée dans un même raisonnement et facilitant la comparaison de procédures de tri avec le domaine classique, nous mettons au jour des différences de nature importantes entre les deux domaines, plus précisément dans la source d’information utilisée. Elles tiennent en deux points essentiels : une affirmation de préférence n’est pas réfutable, et il n’existe pas de façon parfaite de mesurer la préférence. Notre raisonnement montre que ces différences découlent de la différence de problématique dont traite chaque domaine.},\n\tlanguage = {French},\n\tschool = {Université Libre de Bruxelles},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2006}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Ce travail présente, de façon intégrée, les domaines du clustering, de la classification supervisée, et de l’aide multicritère à la décision, et plus particulièrement les procédures de tri. Il présente une critique d’un modèle de présentation bien établi, et nous proposons une définition de l’aide multicritère à la décision, ainsi que de la notion centrale de critère, originale. Nous présentons également une argumentation critique justifiant l’intransitivité des préférences, un sujet souvent très polémique. Nous analysons et critiquons Promethee TRI, une procédure de tri intégrant des idées du domaine de la classification supervisée. La partie III présente une réflexion qui n’a pas été faite à notre connaissance, concernant la difficulté, plus grande que prévue, d’intégration de l’aide multicritère à la décision et des domaines plus classiques. Outre une vision nouvelle permettant d’intégrer le clustering et la classification supervisée dans un même raisonnement et facilitant la comparaison de procédures de tri avec le domaine classique, nous mettons au jour des différences de nature importantes entre les deux domaines, plus précisément dans la source d’information utilisée. Elles tiennent en deux points essentiels : une affirmation de préférence n’est pas réfutable, et il n’existe pas de façon parfaite de mesurer la préférence. Notre raisonnement montre que ces différences découlent de la différence de problématique dont traite chaque domaine.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2003\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n Le courrier électronique recommandé : définition et étude de protocoles.\n \n \n\n\n \n Cailloux, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2003.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n link\n  \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@misc{cailloux_courrier_2003,\n\taddress = {Brussels, Belgium},\n\ttype = {Master's {Thesis} ({Mémoire} de {Licence} en {Informatique})},\n\ttitle = {Le courrier électronique recommandé : définition et étude de protocoles},\n\tabstract = {Un protocole de Courrier Électronique Recommandé sert à échanger un message (un courrier électronique) contre un reçu concernant ce message. Le fait que l’expéditeur puisse prouver qu’il a envoyé un message peut être utile dans des situations très diverses. Typiquement, il souhaite avoir la preuve qu’il a prévenu le destinataire avant d’entreprendre une action.\nNous analysons diverses propriétés que de tels protocoles devraient satisfaire et proposons de nouvelles définitions concernant des propriétés à notre avis importantes mais non introduites avant ce travail, à notre connaissance. Par exemple, malgré le fait qu’il soit important de pouvoir dater une preuve si on souhaite l’utiliser en justice, aucun des auteurs des protocoles analysés dans ce travail ne s’est préoccupé de cette propriété. Nous constatons de plus un oubli problématique dans la littérature existante : la possibilité que le destinataire refuse le courrier. Nous définissons une nouvelle propriété, l’assurance de l’expéditeur, pour pallier ce problème.\nSept protocoles de Courrier Électronique Recommandé sont analysés de façon critique, et plusieurs erreurs sont décrites. Nous proposons des corrections pour résoudre certains problèmes ou pour améliorer le respect de certaines propriétés. Une erreur commune à presque tous les protocoles est que les auteurs n’ont pas envisagé que, si les canaux utilisés ne permettent pas de déterminer une borne sur le temps d’envoi du message, Bob peut nier éternellement avoir reçu le courrier. Cette remarque importante est faite, à notre connaissance, pour la première fois dans ce travail.\nNous poursuivons la comparaison en étudiant l’applicabilité de ces protocoles sur Internet. Nous déterminons d’abord si les hypothèses sur les qualités de canaux nécessaires au fonctionnement des protocoles peuvent être satisfaites sur ce média. Nous définissons des qualités de canaux supplémentaires par rapport aux canaux habituellement utilisés dans la littérature, ce qui nous permet de montrer qu’Internet peut éventuellement être utilisé pour envoyer un Courrier Électronique Recommandé. C’est à notre connaissance la première fois qu’une réflexion est menée pour tenter de valider l’utilisation pratique, sur Internet, d’un protocole de Courrier Électronique Recommandé théorique.\nNous comparons en détail les protocoles analysés ci-dessus dans ce contexte d’utilisation plus précis. Nous examinons entre autres les différents mécanismes mis en oeuvre pour réduire le risque que Bob refuse le courrier et le coût probable d’utilisation du protocole (dépendant principalement de la charge sur la tierce partie de confiance).\nAprès cette étude théorique, plusieurs services de Courrier Électronique Recommandé actuellement utilisés sur Internet sont décrits et analysés. Nous constatons combien les solutions proposées sont souvent peu efficaces et peu sérieuses, s’adressant principalement à un utilisateur qui pense que le courrier qu’il s’apprête à envoyer n’a pas assez de valeur pour que cela vaille la peine d’exploiter une faille dans le protocole. Seul un des services proposés peut d’après nos observations être utilisé pour envoyer un courrier tout en garantissant l’équité. Comme il est basé sur le modèle postal, il satisfait également l’anonymat et l’assurance de l’expéditeur.},\n\tschool = {Université Libre de Bruxelles},\n\tauthor = {Cailloux, Olivier},\n\tyear = {2003}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Un protocole de Courrier Électronique Recommandé sert à échanger un message (un courrier électronique) contre un reçu concernant ce message. Le fait que l’expéditeur puisse prouver qu’il a envoyé un message peut être utile dans des situations très diverses. Typiquement, il souhaite avoir la preuve qu’il a prévenu le destinataire avant d’entreprendre une action. Nous analysons diverses propriétés que de tels protocoles devraient satisfaire et proposons de nouvelles définitions concernant des propriétés à notre avis importantes mais non introduites avant ce travail, à notre connaissance. Par exemple, malgré le fait qu’il soit important de pouvoir dater une preuve si on souhaite l’utiliser en justice, aucun des auteurs des protocoles analysés dans ce travail ne s’est préoccupé de cette propriété. Nous constatons de plus un oubli problématique dans la littérature existante : la possibilité que le destinataire refuse le courrier. Nous définissons une nouvelle propriété, l’assurance de l’expéditeur, pour pallier ce problème. Sept protocoles de Courrier Électronique Recommandé sont analysés de façon critique, et plusieurs erreurs sont décrites. Nous proposons des corrections pour résoudre certains problèmes ou pour améliorer le respect de certaines propriétés. Une erreur commune à presque tous les protocoles est que les auteurs n’ont pas envisagé que, si les canaux utilisés ne permettent pas de déterminer une borne sur le temps d’envoi du message, Bob peut nier éternellement avoir reçu le courrier. Cette remarque importante est faite, à notre connaissance, pour la première fois dans ce travail. Nous poursuivons la comparaison en étudiant l’applicabilité de ces protocoles sur Internet. Nous déterminons d’abord si les hypothèses sur les qualités de canaux nécessaires au fonctionnement des protocoles peuvent être satisfaites sur ce média. Nous définissons des qualités de canaux supplémentaires par rapport aux canaux habituellement utilisés dans la littérature, ce qui nous permet de montrer qu’Internet peut éventuellement être utilisé pour envoyer un Courrier Électronique Recommandé. C’est à notre connaissance la première fois qu’une réflexion est menée pour tenter de valider l’utilisation pratique, sur Internet, d’un protocole de Courrier Électronique Recommandé théorique. Nous comparons en détail les protocoles analysés ci-dessus dans ce contexte d’utilisation plus précis. Nous examinons entre autres les différents mécanismes mis en oeuvre pour réduire le risque que Bob refuse le courrier et le coût probable d’utilisation du protocole (dépendant principalement de la charge sur la tierce partie de confiance). Après cette étude théorique, plusieurs services de Courrier Électronique Recommandé actuellement utilisés sur Internet sont décrits et analysés. Nous constatons combien les solutions proposées sont souvent peu efficaces et peu sérieuses, s’adressant principalement à un utilisateur qui pense que le courrier qu’il s’apprête à envoyer n’a pas assez de valeur pour que cela vaille la peine d’exploiter une faille dans le protocole. Seul un des services proposés peut d’après nos observations être utilisé pour envoyer un courrier tout en garantissant l’équité. Comme il est basé sur le modèle postal, il satisfait également l’anonymat et l’assurance de l’expéditeur.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n
\n
\n \n

Embedding in another Page

\n
\n
\n\n

\n Copy & paste any of the following snippets into an existing\n page to embed this page. For more details see the\n documention.\n

\n\n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n
\n \n <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamsade.dauphine.fr%2F~ocailloux%2FCailloux.bib&theme=default&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n \n
\n\n PHP\n
\n \n <?php\n $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamsade.dauphine.fr%2F~ocailloux%2FCailloux.bib&theme=default&jsonp=1\");\n print_r($contents);\n ?>\n \n
\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n
\n \n <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamsade.dauphine.fr%2F~ocailloux%2FCailloux.bib&theme=default&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n \n
\n\n\n
\n
\n \n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n\n
\n"}; document.write(bibbase_data.data);